Read the following case study and answer the questions that follow it.

Last week I met with a colleague, the Division Chief for Right of Way (I am Division Chief of Planning), to discuss our mutual need to staff a receptionist position on the eighth floor of a new office building we will occupy beginning next month. She will have about 80 employees working on this floor, while my staff will total around 40.

For security and customer service reasons we need to place a receptionist at a cubicle opposite the elevator where visitors can be greeted, screened, and directed as they enter the floor. We do not currently have this problem in our existing building as the organization has a guard hired to check visitors in and out of the only public entrance to the building.

Since the Right of Way Division has twice the number of employees and many more visitors than we do in Planning, I attempted to convince her to agree to staff the position out of her budget. I have had some previous history negotiating with this Division Chief and have found her difficult to work with. This meeting was no exception. I tried to convince her that equity demanded she pay for the position or at least two‐thirds of the costs. She refused, arguing that I should bear the entire cost because her budget had been reduced this fiscal year.

After posturing for some time, it was clear that she was not going to budge in her negotiating position. I had more important issues on my plate that day and also I did not want to take this issue to our mutual boss, the District Director, to resolve.

In light of this, I proposed that we split the costs 50–

50, which she agreed to almost immediately. The problem I have is that this really is not a fair decision for my division and is another example of where I should have been more aggressive in sticking to my position, instead of looking for resolution through a compromise.

a. To what extent did the parties apply the four principles of negotiation (people, interests, etc.)? If not, how could they?

b. Did the parties use any of the four ways to generate more options (prioritizing, bridging, etc.)? If not, how could they?

c. Did the parties incorporate any of the recommendations for converting competitive negotiation to cooperation (talking cooperation, fractionation, etc.)? If not, how could they?